Marxism

[steve_bank]

I think that is why free market systems worked better than the Marxist - communist systems. Humans are naturally connective, free market systems are a better fit to what we humans are.


Part f the Chinese restructuring was getting rid of state run industry and requiring a busyness t be able to stand on its own.

Here inn Seattle I heard an idea floated to tax big business like Amazon to support small business that can not sustain itself.

Progressives are triyng piece meal solutions to economic problems but it will not change much.

It requires a federal restructuring of the economy. Not likely. The progressive Biden would say repeatedly 'Its itj to be rich'.

Biden was tone deaf on the economy as is Trump. Both have proclaimed good economies ignoring rising complaints by people on cost of essentials.

In the long term conservatives are making their worse fears come true. Polls show decreasing support of capitalism and growing support for socialism among young people.

The question iIMOi is if we change rationally or end up with craziness like Venezuela with a devastated economy.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Fascinating. Culture is destiny.

I should probably clarify, by the way, that my point in bringing up all this Econ 101 stuff was to back you up -- I'm arguing you're right that it's possible for everybody to be rich, and bilby's counterarguments don't hold up.

I was unaware that ECON 101 stuff indicates it is possible for everyone to be rich. It suggests that market economies will cause a distribution of income that cannot be redistributed without making at least one person worse off, but it suggests nothing about whether everyone (or anyone) ends up rich.

I didn't say it does. Bilby implied it was impossible for everyone to be rich because "Or do you have some magical way to get $100 an hour for toilet cleaning?". So I pointed out Econ 101 stuff indicates getting $100 an hour for toilet cleaning wouldn't take magic, just comparative advantage. Of course you can propose some completely different argument for why it's impossible; if you do so, we can check if Econ 101 refutes that one as well.

But that's a quite static way to look at which services are available in a market. Almost everything is dynamic in a market.

The demanded price for toilet cleaning can get so high that nobody is willing to pay it. That's where Scandinavia is today when it comes to toilet cleaning in private homes. Or where England is when it comes to butlers. 100 years ago butlers where common in England. Now it's, pretty much, just the king who has a butler.

A market can reach a point where we will optimise away a service, so it just gets baked into what normal people is expected to do by themselves. Which is the inevitable result when everyone is rich.

There's a lot of shitty jobs that have increased in price so much so that it gets replaced by machinery. For example dock workers loading and unloading ships. That used to be a shitty job for the poorest. Today is a well paid specialist job, done by machinery.

Don't underestimate the creativity of the market to make it work.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think that is why free market systems worked better than the Marxist - communist systems. Humans are naturally connective, free market systems are a better fit to what we humans are.

Is it? Humans also want safety and predictability. Humanity have two strong drives in direct opposition. We want variety and abundance and we want safety and predictability. We can't have both, but we want both.

I'd say no system is a particularly good fit for humans. It's simply a question of compromise.

And that's ignoring the stark reality of that communism, at best, doesn't work at all, in providing economic stability.

Part f the Chinese restructuring was getting rid of state run industry and requiring a busyness t be able to stand on its own.

Here inn Seattle I heard an idea floated to tax big business like Amazon to support small business that can not sustain itself.

Progressives are triyng piece meal solutions to economic problems but it will not change much.

The curse of unintended consequences. This kind of regulation doesn't work. Fun fact, Europeans joke about how complicated American corporate beaurocracy is. The legal system for corporations in USA punish small companies. The red tape is, by European standards, extreme. Sweden was a couple of days ago in the Economist held up us the best place to start a company... in the whole world. Not USA.

It requires a federal restructuring of the economy. Not likely. The progressive Biden would say repeatedly 'Its itj to be rich'.

Biden was tone deaf on the economy as is Trump. Both have proclaimed good economies ignoring rising complaints by people on cost of essentials.

In the long term conservatives are making their worse fears come true. Polls show decreasing support of capitalism and growing support for socialism among young people.

That's exactly my point. Marx has won the ideological war. The ideological war is no longer communism vs capitalism. It's now, which kind of socialism should we have. I think the shift has happened already. It happened in the 1960'ies.

Everyone today seems to think that the govornment is responsible for the wellbeing of it's citizens. That's the socialist mindset. The state as a super daddy, taking care of us.

The question iIMOi is if we change rationally or end up with craziness like Venezuela with a devastated economy.

I think the big question is whether or not democracy will inevitably lead to a slide into nanny state socialism, with a hobbled economy. I can imagine a scenario where China is less socialist than any western country and therefore becomes the wealthiest country on Earth.

 

[Bomb#20]

Pursuit of profit in the long run benefits all. It generally worked, but now the income disparity is making it impossible for increasing numbers of people to make ends meet.

The system as it is to me is obviously failing, politically and economically.

That just isn't true. Income disparity does not cause poverty. The number of people who can't make ends meet is decreasing, and has been for many years. There was a temporary increase due to Covid but we got it under control.

What does it mean to be rich? If as ityraditionaly meant in part a lot of decedent creature comforts then a large part of the masses have it. Cars, global air travel, good clothes. a wide variety of food everyday.

Running hot and cold water everywhere, sewers, electricity, cell phones and so on.

Technology and manufacturing efficiency the result of free market competition can supply a large amount of material goods for all.

By traditional standards nearly everyone in modern countries already is rich. The perception that the poor are getting poorer is an illusion caused by expectations rising in parallel with prosperity.

If rich means the stereotypical idle rich who can lounge around living on investments(a family fortune), all can not be rich. A extreme prime example is the British royal family. The idle rich.

Sure, all can be rich, even by that standard. All can live on investments; all can be the idle rich if they choose, or the working rich if they prefer. Not today, true; but give robotics technology another hundred-odd years to develop and it will be perfectly feasible.

 

[laughing dog]

Fascinating. Culture is destiny.

I should probably clarify, by the way, that my point in bringing up all this Econ 101 stuff was to back you up -- I'm arguing you're right that it's possible for everybody to be rich, and bilby's counterarguments don't hold up.

I was unaware that ECON 101 stuff indicates it is possible for everyone to be rich. It suggests that market economies will cause a distribution of income that cannot be redistributed without making at least one person worse off, but it suggests nothing about whether everyone (or anyone) ends up rich.

I didn't say it does. Bilby implied it was impossible for everyone to be rich because "Or do you have some magical way to get $100 an hour for toilet cleaning?". So I pointed out Econ 101 stuff indicates getting $100 an hour for toilet cleaning wouldn't take magic, just comparative advantage. Of course you can propose some completely different argument for why it's impossible; if you do so, we can check if Econ 101 refutes that one as well.

I guess “it’s possible for everybody to be rich” confused me.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think that is why free market systems worked better than the Marxist - communist systems. Humans are naturally connective, free market systems are a better fit to what we humans are.

Unquestionably. Putting the people with their own assets in charge produces a better outcome that when you put people using other people's money in charge.

Biden was tone deaf on the economy as is Trump. Both have proclaimed good economies ignoring rising complaints by people on cost of essentials.

The problem is that this is far more a matter of unreasonable expectations than a true economic problem. It's just the internet has made reality more obvious.

We do have a problem with companies having too many choices and getting into decision paralysis because of it. Candidates A, B, or C--they pick one. Candidates 1..1000, they hold out for the unicorn.

 

[steve_bank]

Note I do not white wash the system as it is, I do not think Marxism or large scale ssocialism will work here in the USA.

I don't know that given our diverse population on many issues and our cultural norms of freedom of action there is any system that will work better.

The triple balance of power envisioned by the founders has broken down.

China makes socialism work for a billion people by rigid top down political and social control. No dissent is allowed. The justice system can be over ridden by the state.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Note I do not white wash the system as it is, I do not think Marxism or large scale ssocialism will work here in the USA.

I don't know that given our diverse population on many issues and our cultural norms of freedom of action there is any system that will work better.

The triple balance of power envisioned by the founders has broken down.

China makes socialism work for a billion people by rigid top down political and social control. No dissent is allowed. The justice system can be over ridden by the state.

Just a detail. The top down social control was invented by Lenin. After already taking power. There's an argument that can be made that its intrinsic to socialism.

The evolution of socialism in western Europe has made socialists extremely socialy liberal. Personal freedoms extremism.

So I think the top down social control of socialism is an artifact if the fact that a tiny group lacking popular support grabbed power in Russia, and then did their darndest to export that specific brand och socialism.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Note I do not white wash the system as it is, I do not think Marxism or large scale ssocialism will work here in the USA.

I don't know that given our diverse population on many issues and our cultural norms of freedom of action there is any system that will work better.

The triple balance of power envisioned by the founders has broken down.

China makes socialism work for a billion people by rigid top down political and social control. No dissent is allowed. The justice system can be over ridden by the state.

Just a detail. The top down social control was invented by Lenin. After already taking power. There's an argument that can be made that its intrinsic to socialism.

The evolution of socialism in western Europe has made socialists extremely socialy liberal. Personal freedoms extremism.

So I think the top down social control of socialism is an artifact if the fact that a tiny group lacking popular support grabbed power in Russia, and then did their darndest to export that specific brand och socialism.

The only way to impose a new system on people that isn't unanimously liked is through violence. So of course, Marxism would have to be top down, with very brutal secret police force.

 

[steve_bank]

Harry gets the crux of the problem.

Egyptian Pharaohs, kings, Roman emperors. Mao and Stalin. I don't think Lenin 'invented' authoritarian control. As I understand it in the end Lenin realized that sudden large scale change would have problems. There was a democracy movement. When Lenin died there was intrigue and Stalin won out.

Marxism is violent revolutionary by doctrine. In History Of The Russian Revolution Trotsky wrote persuasion was not working, force was necessary.

We see it in the Mid East. We toppled Hussein and handed Iraq over to the people. We put together an election but it was boycotted by a major faction. Leaders arose with militias and began fighting among themselves. Same result when Gaddafi was removed in Libya.

Without the USA as a stabilizing influence would the EU survive?

Western liberal democracy, rue by democratic processes, is on shaky ground,

Look at the havoc created by a rogue American president legally elected by the people.

Us humans are combative and competitive.

I think free market economics has worked because it is an outlet for the aggression. And it represents an unprecedented freedom of action for the masses.

Trying to limit those freedoms will meet stiff resistance on all sides.


China dumped Maoist collectivism and adapted free market economics. Notb te wde open freedom we have.

Yes, people in China generally have the freedom to change jobs
, especially with the growth of the market economy and online platforms making job-hopping common, but there are bureaucratic steps, particularly for foreigners needing to update work/residence permits, and labor laws (like mandatory written contracts) are in place, though enforcement can vary. Chinese citizens have significant economic freedom to choose careers, though political restrictions exist, and the system prioritizes orderly employment changes.

What are you wililng to give up in exchange for economic security? That is the question.